I never said the ONLY alternative to totalitarianism is feudalism, and I never said that fascism was decentralized, in fact, I made it quite clear the fascist state was "dominant". Before derisively asking me to look up elementary definitions I would suggest you actually have the courtesy to read my posts carefully before you dismiss them out of hand.

As for the only alternative to laissez-faire economics being state fascism of the Soviet model I must disagree. Although I have read enough of your posts now that I suspect you would like us to believe those are the only two choices we have. I do not believe that, and I doubt anyone here believes it either. Not even you. It simply makes the alternative you prefer the only one available.

What I do believe is that laissez faire economics is inherently unstable, and inevitably leads to monopoly, or worse. At the very least, it never seems to find an equilibrium, and eternally oscillates between panic and bubble, a state of constant turmoil that only seems to benefit financiers, bankers, lawyers and other non-productive parasites. And as Adam Smith warned us, without equilibrium and stability (and yes, sustainability), there can be no truly free market. The events of the last few years have made that abundantly clear.

Competition alone does not guarantee economic diversity any more than gang warfare results in a reduction in organized crime. It only facilitates the rise to power of the most ruthless elements who will consolidate their position by exploiting a captive market to restore their losses after they eliminate their weaker competitors. I am, of course, not rejecting free markets out of hand, I'm just saying they must be nurtured, encouraged and protected; they will not arise spontaneously as long as more profitable short-term alternatives exist.

What I did say in my post was that a centralized (perhaps "federal" would be more accurate a term) constitutional democracy regulating but not hamstringing a free market economy is the optimum form of politico-economic system; in other words, what has been evolving in the United States and Western Europe over the last century and now seems to be taking hold in Asia. This has not only allowed a simultaneous growth in both personal and political freedoms, but economic prosperity and redistribution of wealth to the middle and lower classes of society. It is, I believe, the form of government destined to prevail on this planet, and the one most of humanity seems to prefer. Even those who actively work to undermine it give it lip service and at least pretend to support it.

As for the so-called laissez-faire free-enterprise systems, I have yet to see one in history, they appear to be as scarce as the socialist utopias the nineteenth century anarchists kept on promising were just around the corner, but never seemed to materialize.